Hi, is there any reason to purchase one over the other? I’ll be using 0w-20 in my Mazda 3, and it seems the high mileage oil is a little more expensive. Is it better than the regular PP? My Mazda 3 has 100k miles on it and Mazda recommends 10k OCI for this vehicle.
PP vs PP high mileage
- Thread starter cals400ex
- Start date
I thought it was strange too. However, the manual and the Mazda dealer say a 10k OCI is recommended. I’m unsure if the Mazda oil is better or if this vehicle is easy on oil….
Mazda engines are prone to oil dilution, but in general I do not recommend extended oil change intervals on any vehicle.
Mazda doesn't make it's own oil, only a few companies actually make their own oil and car manufacturers usually come to agreements with one of the big companies. Toyota for example uses Mobil 1 and so does GM last I checked.
The main thing that matters with oil is does it meet the requirements that are listed in your owners manual or sometimes on the oil cap. If it does meet the requirements then you are good to go.
If you go back and read discussions here on BITOG on the subject of high mileage oil, I suspect you will find that the majority acknowledge that high mileage motor oils are formulated differently than normal oils. But you will also find that the majority here don't use high mileage oils. I suspect at least part of the reason, is not all motor oils are available in high mileage formulas, and so someone has to decide if high mileage is more important than other moto oil qualities. But where a HM formulation is available in the oil of your choice, it may be a good option to use the HM oil.
I'm not very familiar with Mazda engines, but you will find that BITOG members are split on extended oil change intervals. Since Mazda recommends a 10k mile oci, one could argue that it isn't an extended oci. PP is well suited for extended oci. And you will find plenty of evidence showing that engines do great on extended oci.
Some of the most respected auto manufactures out there recommend 10k mile oci. My E350 is amongst them, and I follow the 10k mile oci recommendation. Used oil analysis suggests that I could go longer if I chose to. Perhaps someone here has some used oil analysis for the engine you have? That would give you an idea if there is any validity to the claim that Mazda engines have fuel dilution issues.
I'm not very familiar with Mazda engines, but you will find that BITOG members are split on extended oil change intervals. Since Mazda recommends a 10k mile oci, one could argue that it isn't an extended oci. PP is well suited for extended oci. And you will find plenty of evidence showing that engines do great on extended oci.
Some of the most respected auto manufactures out there recommend 10k mile oci. My E350 is amongst them, and I follow the 10k mile oci recommendation. Used oil analysis suggests that I could go longer if I chose to. Perhaps someone here has some used oil analysis for the engine you have? That would give you an idea if there is any validity to the claim that Mazda engines have fuel dilution issues.
Last edited:
FWIW, my logic is this... The EVIC indicator for an oil change on my wife's 2014 T&C comes on between 8,500 and 10,000 miles. The manual recommends conventional oil so I figure me using FS and now FS HM oil will be nothing but better. I'd follow the manual and if you are really concerned do a couple of UOA 's to make sure it is on track.
Just my $0.02
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2021
- Messages
- 830
If you email SOPUS support, they'll tell you that PP HM has a bit less of a cleaning additive pack and has additional seal conditioners instead.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That seems like a pretty broad generalization, do you have any examples? Because I have some counter examples:
You'll note phosphorous is higher in the EP HM oils than in the regular EP oils.
You should be well aware that zinc caused catalytic converter plugging issues. While it may no longer be the case simply b/c they've been reducing those amounts over the last several years it was the case for a bit.
Think about it... A high mileage cat is going to have some deposits...right? The HM oils being tailored to HM vehicles with cat deposits that oil is going to try & reduce the chances of plugging the cat further. That was something I just didn't pull out of thin air.
What is good for a high mileage vehicle might be good for new vehicles so the approach to reducing this oil additive is the main reason to prevent cat clogging these days across the board new & used.
Think about it... A high mileage cat is going to have some deposits...right? The HM oils being tailored to HM vehicles with cat deposits that oil is going to try & reduce the chances of plugging the cat further. That was something I just didn't pull out of thin air.
What is good for a high mileage vehicle might be good for new vehicles so the approach to reducing this oil additive is the main reason to prevent cat clogging these days across the board new & used.
I’ve never seen where zinc caused plugging, it was always the phosphorus that caused passivation or poisoning of the catalyst.
Ash can plug the catalyst but I don’t see how zinc would.
Ash can plug the catalyst but I don’t see how zinc would.
And what does Zinc contain... Phosphorus. However, they both cause damage.
Here's some light reading..
https://www.autozone.com/diy/motor-oil/zinc-additives-in-motor-oil-and-how-they-help
Lol what? Zinc contains phosphorus?
You need to learn some basic chemistry. Plus the obvious fact that there’s a difference between plugging and poisoning. Your statement above was completely incorrect.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
That’s ZDDP you are thinking of ?
ZDDP contains both
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No, it's phosphorous that can potentially cause issues for catalysts as well, moreso, GPF's and DPF's.
The limit on phosphorous for the RC grades was put in place for API SM but does not apply to xW-40's and xW-50's since they are not RC. Reductions in phosphorous more broadly (though not to the same degree) was brought in under the ACEA C-series protocols to protect DPF's initially, and then later extended to GPF's when they began to appear.
HM oils typically have higher levels of seal conditioners and are often a bit heavier. I've provided a counter-example to your claim, if you wouldn't mind supporting your statement by providing some examples of HM oils that have lower phosphorous levels than their non-HM siblings, I'd appreciate it.
Here are a few more from the PQIA site.
- Castrol GTX vs GTX HM, the HM again has higher phosphorous:
Pennzoil vs Pennzoil High Mileage, again the HM oil has higher phosphorous:
Valvoline 5W-30 vs Max Life 5W-30, again the HM oil has more phosphorous:
Phosphorous was reduced for the RC grades because they were more likely to consume, being thinner. This didn't apply to the heavier non-RC grades because they are less likely to end up in the exhaust system. This is also likely why the HM oils are generally heavier, which you can also see in all of my above examples.
With grades like 0W-16 and 0W-12 becoming more common and the odds of consumption being further increased, this becomes more important. If we add in GPF's, which are far more sensitive to poisoning, this further underscores the issue.
Well I have the basics as I do have a minor in chemistry. But if you are suggesting I need more then I’d agree. I always wish I went for a chemistry degree rather than staying in engineering.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Quiz: what’s the P for in SAPS 
Similar threads
